They won't until they figure out a way to not wipe out part of the memory whenever you switch systems in a dual-boot configuration. The iPaq actually has a pretty poor flash-management controller, from what I understand. (Not that CE cares. Hell, it doesn't even know when you install a different boot-loader.)

Yes, I hope so too. But first of all I want to see them sell Linux preinstalled notebooks. It would be a winner situation for HP, to sell a full line of Linux-preinstalled hardware: servers, desktops, notebooks and handhelds. RedHat, Mandrake and SuSE are all excellent candidates...

Linux preloaded *anything* could make a dramatic difference. The ability to buy a PC designed for your favorite distro (meaning no compatibility issues, of course), and have it work right out of the box can have a big impact on the O/S and software business. How many people do you know who are quite capable of running Linux but gave up due to their inability to install succesfully. How many distros have you given up on out of frustration with the installation process. Once the install is included with the hardware, we may just see some real competition.

Maybe once there is a reliables set of user applications. The stuff that has been written so far is great, but until someone handles the details like syncing and quality of applications, Linux is going to have a way to go.

The paper clip is very efficient do to it's well integrated design. It takes very little cycles. It's when you try to kill it you suck up cpu as you go through menus and do everything you can to kill it.

OK, well i have to say in office XP one click and he's gone for good. But i know in previous releases he was a bitch, or a bubble, or a dog....

I'm writing this/. post from a 700MHz Celeron. I put my box through *much* heavier usage than a typical business user. I frequently surf the web in mozilla while my software compiles with OpenWriter and Gimp open on other desktops. I've sometimes wanted more RAM (I have 192Mb) but I don't need a faster chip.

OTOH, I doubt much cheaper than a 2.0GHz Celeron is still made, except for the Via chips without hardware floating point.

Well, I started with a C-64. That's right children, 64k. Then I thought I was doing good with a 512 meg video card. And wow, my p-75 with 4 whole megs of video memory (more than my first real pc) really smoked them. I wait so long between computer updates that my next computer generally has as much or more video ram than my previous one had ram. Right now I'm on an Athlon 1800+ with 512 megs of ram and a 32 meg video card. In a year or two 512 on video card will probably pretty middle of the road. 25

Sorry, the Commodore 64 did have 64K of RAM. It also had (I believe) 20K of ROM (8K BASIC interpreter, 8K kernel ROM and 4K character ROM) mapped in at various addresses. However, the RAM "underneath" the ROMs is available, but only in machine language.

The BASIC interpreter is mapped in at $A000, the character ROM is mapped in at $D000 (I think, I don't quite remember), and the kernel ROM is mapped in at $E000. Due to the way that the VIC-II works, being able to access only 16K at a time, the character ROM is also mapped in at $1000 and $9000, but only the VIC-II sees it this way, the 6510 sees the RAM there.

Now then, to map out the ROM's, you need to play with the MMU, which is at memory location 1. Also, like I said, you have to be in machine language, because using any of these methods, you end up mapping out either the BASIC interpreter, BASIC and the kernel, or all of the ROM's, and if you're in BASIC, unless you've copied the ROM to RAM, you'll crash the machine.

These values will work, although you shouldn't just set them, since they also set some of the Datasette lines as well. Set the MMU (memory location 1) to these values to get the RAM:$36: Map in the RAM under the BASIC interpreter (8K at $A000)$35: Map in the RAM under the BASIC interpreter (8k at $A000) and under the kernel (8K at $E000)$34: All 64K of RAM.There are other values as well, but I don't remember how they work, as I didn't use them very often.

Note that when you map out the kernel or use all 64K of RAM, you MUST disable interrupts. The 6510, when it receives an interrupt, jumps to the vector pointed at $FFFC ($FFFA for NMI's), and for IRQ, this is $EA31 (I don't remember the NMI). If the CPU does it's JMP($FFFC), and there's garbage there, well, your C64 goes off intonever-never land.

Also when you map in all 64K of memory, you only have about 63K of memory. That's because most of zero page (0-255) is reserved, $100-$200 is the stack (you don't want to mess with that unless you really know what you're doing), and $300 contains some semi-important pointers (file I/O, IRQ, etc.). But from $400 up, you're all clear.

Of interesting note... The game Impossible Mission (by Epyx) used all but 1K of RAM. And yes, I'm a former C64 demo coder, I've set the machine to use all 64K of RAM many times.

I started on an Apple II but so what? You can't get any real useful work done on one now and yes, even the 400mhz and 733mhz CPU's people are talking about in here are getting pretty long in the tooth for business use.
Only yesterday I saw a Mac Plus doing its job for a librarian - granted, only for text processing and printing, but still. It did its job. I actually asked wether she would rather like a new computer - there were quite a lot of them around. Of course not, she replied, as the Mac does its jo

This is also good news that Large companies see Distros other than Red Hat to be of excellent quality. It have many times seen ignorant IT managers telling me how the only way to go with Linux is RedHat. (which is good, but not the only one)
Maybe now i can propose the use of my favorite distro and have "managerial" evidence to back it.:)

Whether this is good or not might depend upon if you're a developer considering writing Linux software. While it might not seem that tough to just support "Linux", the minor differences in all the different distros can really balloon into major QA, tech support and release engineering (as each distro tends to have different preferred package handling systems) headaches.

I think this hurts Linux as an application target more than most people realize, and I hope one of the many announced standardization efforts actually produces something other than talk and press releases soon.

Maybe other manufacturers and consumers will realize that linux is superior to windows in just about every way possible. It's taken long enough anyways, the average linux Desktop not only looks, performs and is more intuitive than windows' explorer.exe, but also has way more applications available from the start.

Linux may lack the video editing tools that are present in the Windows world, but there are projects out there working on them. I personally use Kino for the small jobs I have, and it does the job.

create artwork

Two words: The Gimp. Very powerful. Very supported. And free. There are many other programs out there, but The Gimp is the most known. Some compare it to Photoshop.

manage source code

This is where Linux shines! It was created by hackers, for hackers, and as such has a great history with development and development tools. I'm constantly suprised that more people don't develope for Linux since it comes with every kind of development tool most will ever need. CVS, IDEs, compilers, linkers, debuggers... Linux has it all and for free!

create product to send out to clients

That depends on the product. Where I work, the Windows boxes are nothing more than a way to use the Exchange Server (which the open source world really needs to come up with a replacement for) and maybe a few office documents. The real work is done on Linux and Unix boxes. Everyone here who is part of the core revenue stream works entirely on Linux. It's more secure, free, and easier to manage when you have thousands of servers. So, as far as producing a product to sell, Linux is definately ready, and has been for a while.

Maybe it's time you actually try doing something real on Linux. I'd think you'd be suprised by how well it works.

HP announced today an affordable, high-quality desktop PC for small and medium businesses (SMB): the HP Compaq Business Desktop d220 Microtower, which offers a choice for operating system between Windows or Mandrake Linux 9.1 (please read the press-release below).

It's the first time that an industry leader publicly announces the availability of Linux on a desktop PC.

This is the result of a worldwide agreement between MandrakeSoft and HP. The Mandrake Linux 9.1 operating system, while poor in comparison

Well on the one hand this is great news, on the other hand despite what the press release says I don't see any way to configure a system to ship with Mandrake instead of Windows XP on their little site store page that is linked into that press release. All of the d220 models I see listed are shipping with Windows XP with no way to change that option (I was hoping to see what kind of price difference, if any, that option would cause).

Hopefully this is just a case of the press releasing being issued a bit

I think what it comes down to is not wanting to lose out sales to someone else. If their competetors are making at least 1 sale with something, most companies will want to try and steal away that sale... almost at any cost!

Of course, it looks like they're not going to put a huge effort behind it until there is some momentum... but then do expect them market the hell out of it.

Despite the fact that Linux is apparently not ready yet for "mum" (certainly because of a lack of third-party applications), it really seems there is a growing momentum for Linux on the desktop in the field of corporate environements. My guess is that StarOffice/OpenOffice.org are responsible for that, and also that Mandrake 9.1, with its great desktop environment, offers most things that corporations need for their daily tasks. This includes OpenOffice.org and Mozilla for instance.

Hopefully with more larger companies offering Linux on desktops more people will consider switching and thus more commercial applications will become available.

That and the prediction that Linux will surpass Apple in desktop usage next year.

I have lots of friends that I met from other completely non-tech message boards that I participate on. In the chat rooms I've been asked on many occasion by these people about switching to Linux which has always surprised me because I've never mentioned it to anyone. They know that I work professionally as a computer programmer and that's about it.

A few years ago I used to pitch Linux to everyone who didn't care. I stopped for just that reason... no one cared. Now I find those same people are starting to care. Why? Because they hear about it from companies like Wallmart, HP, Dell etc. so now all of a sudden it must mean something.

I wouldn't be so hopeful. I know any number of people who, despite the fact that they know that excellent alternatives are available, will just automatically insist on having Windows installed on their next computer purchase. It's like all the idiots who spend the years between elections complaining about their government, and then go and vote the same bozos back in again at election time. (Or don't bother turning up to vote at all, which is worse.)

I installed Mandrake 9.0, and I think I had to reboot it once. Longest part was the actual copying of data. Once it started up and booted into KDE, like magic my sound, video, network, modem, etc. just worked. Just about every program I need already installed and ready to go. Just add Opera and Seti@Home. Time spent 60 minutes max.

Windows 2000: Install it. Takes like 45-60 minutes. And I am presented with a 640x480 screen with 16 colors, no sound, no network. Couple of hours later, countless reboots. Drivers in. Now Windows update. Many 100's of MB later, and dozens of reboots later, that's done. Now install programs. Several hours later that's done. Also throw in a couple of hours to install video codecs, and getting all the different ones to work with each other without conflict and crashes (UGH!) Time spent: 1 day atleast.

Linux is lightyears ahead of Windows in the install the OS department. I will admit though, installing programs in Windows is easy, so easy that they install all by themselves at times! (heh). Installing software in Linux is tedious and confusing at times.

What I find most amazing is Knoppix. Throw a CD in the drive, reboot the computer, and in 5 minutes I'm sitting in front of a fully functional Linux desktop with all my sound/video/network all working, OpenOffice, Mozilla, and countless applications already installed and ready to go - and it's all running off the CD and ramdisk! Utterly amazing.

Windows 2000: Install it. Takes like 45-60 minutes. And I am presented with a 640x480 screen with 16 colors, no sound, no network. Couple of hours later, countless reboots. Drivers in. Now Windows update. Many 100's of MB later, and dozens of reboots later, that's done.

Ok, reboots are one thing, but just FYI, on my last install of Mandrake 9.1 several days ago I was presented with nearly 300MB of updates and bug fixes after install. This is on a release only a couple months old, mind you - Win2000 has s

Heh, I know what you mean. Where I work, I supervise a couple of techs who each generally have to do at least 2-3 installs per day of Windows 2000. We don't use imaging because, frankly, we find that it sucks - - quicker to do straight loads of the OS as well as our company apps. Anyway, I or my techs can have four units on a KVM at one time, and we can knock those out in a little over an hour for the whole bunch. I don't know why Linux people seem to have so much trouble with it.;)

What is there to do in the XP install that is way harder in comparison to Mandrake?

OK, I haven't used mdk since 8.1, and I'm perfectly happy with Slackware's text-based installer...

But in installed XP on a friend's computer the other day, and it is not always a piece of cake. Given the "closed" nature of the installer, you are fucked if it just doesn't happen to like your hardware, and I'm talking brand-name stuff here, not the no-name crud. But an installer that formats a HDD for you, goes through a few m

I clicked on the "specs" link, hit configure, and it took me to a page where all I could "configure" was the monitor, warranty, and speakers - not the OS, which seemed locked to windows. Or am I being dense? I suspect I'm being dense.;)

From the Specifications provided:
operating systems included: Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional; Microsoft® Windows® XP Home or Mandrake Linux 9.1.
Interestingly enough, there is no mention whatsoever about the difference in price depending upon the OS.
If I were someone who hasn't heard of Mandrake Linux, why would I bother selecting it if I am getting a MS OS (something that I am much more familiar with) for the same price? Where is the incentive for me to buy a system with Mandrake installed on it?
From a business perspective IMO, paying for something unkown would be a no-no. One might consider taking a RISK if one buys something unfamiliar at a lower price with some extra incentives thrown in. Include Mandrake's documentation in HARD COPY; free training courses for employees, etc???

I don't use Mandrake. Can I just get a fricking HP without any operating system at all? No, I don't want support for something I install, I just want the damn hardware without paying a tax to Microsoft of Mandrake.

It isn't that surprising. Unless MS has changed its contracts, HP is still paying them for a WinXP license on the Mandrake boxen, on the logic that it could have had WinXP installed on it. If the US had anti-trust law, they might get in trouble for this.

Of course, it's still cheaper, because Mandrake comes with office, graphics, networking, and development software that's sold seperately (and expensively) for windows.

Just as I was getting worried that Carly was turning the New HP into a pure MS vehicle (all this stuff about 64 bit Windows being Itanium's "killer app"). I was starting to think they'd ditch HP-UX any day now (as they will with PA-RISC, now that they're pushing Itanium). So it's a shock to see them putting Mandrake on a PC OEM style (and a business targeted PC too!). I hope they have stellar success with this. If this succeeds I hope they offer other distros like Red Hat, United Linux, and even something like Lindows on a consumer model, all OEM loaded. Compaq had started to offer Dell-style customization of PC's ordered over the web before the *cough*takeover*cough merger. I wonder if HP still does that? That'd be the perfect place to offer even more choice.

HP Compaq desktops are available with the latest operating systems from the industry leader, Microsoft, as well as a robust Linux offering from Mandrake. The HP Compaq d220 offers a choice of Microsoft Windows XP Professional, Microsoft Windows XP Home or Mandrake's Linux v9.1,

providing customers with the versatility needed for today's mixed-use environments.

Emphasis mine. Isn't HP like in the top 3 PC sellers in the USA? And HP puts out a press release to businesses that pretty much makes it seem like OS's other than Windows in businesses are becoming pretty damn common.

I tell most my friends around me not to buy MS stock. Because once they lose their enormous marketshare, like dominos they'll lose their monopoly. HP just reinforced my belief that I'll get to see this happen within 5 years, easy.

This is a great move for promoting linux. Hopefully it'll lead to OS choice where it really matters: laptops. Nobody should have to pay the windows tax ever again! Even better, be able to buy laptop computers without an OS installed and let the consumer get the ultimate choice.

No major vendor seems keen to only sell Linux desktop boxes, so the Linux option won't happen until competition law smacks Microsoft on the hand.

It's only if and when Linux takes the lead over Windows on the desktop that you will see vendors confident to ditch Microsoft.

Competition is being offered a choice, Microsoft can cry all they like about recent governments coming up with Open Source legislation that only stipulates the use of Open Source, it's them who started all this silly anti-competitive rubbish and vendor lock-in in the first place.

Desktops perhaps, but they still sell "workstations" loaded with RedHat Linux. What's more, on one system I tried configuring, the price dropped a massive $23 when I selected RedHat Linux instead of XP.

This is merely speculation, but the drive to Debian might have been led by Bruce Perens [perens.com] (Bruce used to be the Project Leader for Debian GNU/Linux) when he was an exec at HP. Now that he's left, it might explain why the association has disappeared.

What Linux needs is a distribution that, by default, makes everything look beautiful and easy. Even if they're not familiar with Linux, making Linux *look* easier than Windows (which still baffles my father after 8 years) would be a humongous step in the right direction.

This seems to be the most controversial argument when people talking about linux taking over the desktop.

I predict that linux will come become a mainstream OS in the same way that windiows did. People will use it at work first (corporations will implement it beacuse it is cheaper and has the advantages of being open source), then it will trickle on to people's desktops at home. To think that it will happen any other way seems a bit naive considering how much M$ can afford to spend on making sure home des

If you just want to play with Linux, Mandrake should be your only choice.

If you need to test or develop on Linux, Mandrake will have you up and running in less than an hour.

If you need a SERIOUS Linux box, Mandrake can be customized to suit aswell, but here it has few advantages over other distributions time wise. Although you get to work in reverse to say Debian.

I personally can not recommend it over say Suse or Debian for a life-or-death server, but for everyone else, it's just plain awesome. Give it time and Mandrake will give us a brilliant server installation as well.

It is interesting that there is a small difference between hardware configurations on HP's Windows XP and Linux solutions. I wonder if they are exploiting a loophole in Microsoft's anti competitive agreements. Perhaps the agreement specifies something about 'the same hardware model'.

For a clerk in a cube, that's still more machine than they need. Hardware has far outstripped common business needs, and I'm expecting that in two years, the machines I'm purchasing for the office will be better than that for less than $300.

Does someone know wether this also means that HP will start to sell laptops without the mandatory M$ fee?

Since M$ forced Dell to stop shipping laptops without Windows it's been practically impossible to buy a quality laptop without the M$ fee. Even IBM, with all it's pro-linux steps it has taken recently, ain't selling a laptop without Windows.

And does someone know wether it's the manufacturers that are in league with M$ or the retailers or perhaps both?

It's newsworthy because Mandrake only just recently climbed out of bankruptcy [slashdot.org]. The fact that a major computer manufacturer has decided to preload Mandrake on one of their business-line models as an alternative to Windows suggests that the company's future might be brighter than many expected.

Maybe it's news because Mandrake is seen as more of a desktop distro than RedHat (though it also forms a very capable server), and it shows that one of the biggest PC suppliers now thinks Linux is ready for the desktop.

I'd have to disagree with you. In fact, I think Mandrake is an odd choice for a business desktop. I was planning on buying some HP desktops and putting RedHat 9 on them, but I'll jump on this opportunity to replace the Microsoft tax with the Mandrake tax and still end up using RH9.

Linux (OK, GNU/Linux) has been ready for the desktop for a long time. The question, though, is which distro? Which window manager? When running a business, this stuff matters far more than license fees, within reasonable limits. When you think about how technically inferior Windows 3.1 was compared to OS/2 and the Mac, let alone the *nix's back then, it would seem to be a wonder that it got anywhere at all. But, considering how cheap it was and the fact that it did its basic job well enough on a huge permut

Now we have you and others comparing Mandrake to RH and already, and I sense the same pattern of the OS battles in the early 90s. Sooner or later,/. will become a spectacular arena in which to watch the distro battle/FUD flingfest. How this will resolve itself, I have no idea. But it sure will be interesting to see which Linux distro prevails, and to what extent.

I use Redhat 9 every day as my primary workstation and I have to say that its quite capable as a desktop as well.

You can actually say that about pretty much any distribution. Slackware does it very nicely for me, though over the years I have had flings with RedHat, Mandrake and Debian. I'm not going to get drawn into a flamewar as to which is "better"; it's just a matter of choice as to how you like to work.

might be interesting to see what repercussions this has for Mandrake being recognized as a business Linux solution. Last I heard, Mandrake was just coming out of chapter 11. Was this the boost they need?
Ximian says that as soon as your organization has 1000+ machines running some other flavor of Linux (besides SuSE and RedHat), they would consider an XD2 release for that distro. Well, HP's decision could move Ximian in that direction.

A couple of points here (as devil's advocate if you like, since I'm not personally a big fan of mdk):

Chapter 11 doesn't apply in France. If I recall correctly, Mandrake's insolvency proceedings were pretty much a way of ditching costly commitments from the dot-bomb era.

As a business solution it might be quite a good option if they are still bundling StarOffice. I seem to remember they did with 9.0. It seems a lot of businesses are more comfortable with the proprietary office package than with OpenOffice, d

That game was awesome. The parachute and sniper mode were way useful, head shots counted, and your dog would fly in on a bombing run for you.Now granted it was never networkable, but it was still a great game;-)

Because at one time, Systemax WAS offering FreeDOS on their boxes. I was always pissed that they wouldn't offer Linux as an alternative, because they actually sold a server product with a custom Linux OS.

Seems like this little insignifcant OS is making inroads despite what Bill thinks. Once products like OpenOffice become more mature the game is over and real desktop penetration, coporate side at least, will happen.

Yes, it will, and eventually there is a real chance that linux will supplant Windows as the OS of choice for business...BUT... by the time that happens, MS will most likely have tied a great deal of digital rights restrictions technology into windows.

The upshot? One day, most 'new' media will only be playable on windows, and hence MS will control the consumer market.

It may be that this is exactly what they are planning for. They may have recognized that they're slowly losing corporate mindshare, and are now grasping at straws in that arena. Look at the suspicious influx of money that they gave to SCO, look at their new corporate licensing policies (subscription model) - are these desperation moves?

How do you expect them to make profits if they just keep giving their product away? Are you just going to label every distro that gets business-oriented a sell-out?

Either you want Linux to go bigtime and you deal with taking a back seat to the big boys, or you can have your little community of free support which will always be seen as too technical for the masses. Take your pick. You can't have both.